European Business Law, the fourth volume in our series, shows how the European authorities simultaneously abolish all restrictions on access to and exercise of economic activities and support the growth of domestic markets, through the harmonization the internal legislation or the enactment of genuinely unified regulations.

European Business Law

The provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on customs duties, taxes having equivalent effect and internal taxation produce direct effects and create individual rights which national courts must protect . By virtue of the principle of primacy, those provisions prevail over conflicting provisions of national law . The conditions for bringing an action and reimbursement are fixed by the domestic legal system of each Member State which designates the courts having jurisdiction and determines the procedural conditions . Although those conditions cannot be less favorable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature , or so fixed as to render virtually impossible the exercise of rights conferred by EU law , compliance with the principle of equivalence does not oblige a Member State to extend its most favorable rules governing recovery under national law to all actions for repayment of charges or dues levied in breach of European law . The repayment procedure may be coupled with a reasonable time-limit . It may differ from the ordinary limitation period for actions for the recovery of sums paid, but not due where it applies without distinction to all actions for repayment of charges of that nature, irrespective of whether they are based on national or European law . 

Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 3, LawLex200900001785JBJ; Case 33/70 Spa Sace v Ministero delle finanze [1970] ECR 1213, LawLex200900001950JBJ; Case 18/71 Eunomia di Porro E. C. [1971] ECR 811, LawLex200900001621JBJ; Case 68/79 Just [1980] ECR 501, LawLex200900002032JBJ; Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, LawLex200900001992JBJ; Case 45/76 Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043, LawLex200900001993JBJ.

Case 18/71 Eunomia di Porro E. C. [1971] ECR 811, LawLex200900001621JBJ.

Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, LawLex200900001992JBJ.

Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595, LawLex200900001643JBJ. This is the case where presumptions or rules of evidence impose on a taxpayer the burden of establishing the use of the charges unduly paid, making it virtually impossible to reimburse the charges levied: Case 331/85 Bianco and Girard v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects [1988] ECR 1099, LawLex201100000434JBJ.

Case C-231/96 France v Commission [1998] ECR I-5699, LawLex200900001310JBJ.

Is reasonable: a period of four or five years, Case C-88/99 Roquette Frères [2000] ECR I-10465, LawLex200700001598JBJ; even three years: Case C-231/96 France v Commission [1998] ECR I-5699, LawLex200900001310JBJ; by contrast, a new period that is shorter and more restrictive without sufficient transitional period is contrary to EU law: Case C-255/00 Grundig Italiana [2002] ECR I-8003, LawLex200900000998JBJ.

Case C-228/96 Aprile v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1998] ECR I-7141, LawLex200900001297JBJ.

65. Procedure for reimbursement